Paul Smart, editor of the Olive Press and Phoenicia Times published an article about Glenda McGee's, Chris Johansen's and my forming the Woodstock-Shandaken-Olive Tea Party in the Woodstock Times this week. The article begins:
"We're drinking lattes and regular bold coffees in the back of the Kingston Starbucks, talking about the starting up of a new Olive/Shandaken/Woodstock offshoot of the year-old Kingston Tea Party group that meets monthly at the Ulster Town Hall. Mitchell Langbert and Glenda McGee are noting how they wished their friend Chris Johansen had been able to make it, since he was the one working the organizational details involving who'd be joining, when and where meetings would be occurring, and how the new local Tea Party effort would operate."
Read the whole article here.
Showing posts with label olive press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label olive press. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The Obama Goose Step
Gus Murphy of Brooklyn wrote the following letter to the February Olive Press concerning my January letter. My response follows:
Dear Editor,
I found Mitchell Langbert's letter in your January 14th issue quite interesting. His theory that Democrats come in two general categories, a)liars, and b) suckers, was quite persuasive.
But why just Democrats? His theory fits Republicans even better. Republican policies are even more in thrall to large corporate interests over those of common individual citizens.
Personally, it seems to me that Party loyalty most resembles rooting for sports teams; "Yay my team, good, bad, or pitiful." No one ever wonders if the Mets really deserve to win or are really objectively the best -- Mets fans just want to win any way they can.
Gus Murphy
Brooklyn, NY
From: Mitchell Langbert
To: PhoeniciaTimes@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:10 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor:
Gus Murphy makes an excellent point in your February 11 issue: both parties are culpable for the serious fiscal and monetary decline facing future generations of Americans. George W. Bush engineered a policy whereby a great deal of money, some insiders are saying $14 trillion, was donated to Wall Street. President Obama executed the Bush donation, which has been his chief achievement besides reappointing Robert Gates defense secretary. Of course Obama threw in an extra trillion of "stimulus" to corrupt contractors, such as to the mob-linked construction firm that is building the power plant in Middletown Connecticut that killed five people last week.
But there is one difference between the parties. There is a movement of Republicans called the Tea Party which rejects the big business- and special interest-linked Republican leadership. I have been at two well-attended meetings of the Kingston Tea Party. At the Tea Party, complaints about George W. Bush are as frequent as complaints about Barack H. Obama. On the other hand, I know of no large group of Democrats who have not goosestepped behind Obama every step of the way. Indeed, the Wall Street-financed media, starting with MSNBC and CNN, have made every effort to paint the Tea Party as violent extremists because they threaten the Bush-Obama, Republican-Democratic Wall Street-Washington equilibrium.
Where are the Democrats who protest Obama's massive subsidy to Wall Street? I can tell you where we Republicans are. I can also tell you where plenty of Obama-cheering limousine liberals are. But where are the Democrats who don't like $14 trillion subsidies to special interests?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Dear Editor,
I found Mitchell Langbert's letter in your January 14th issue quite interesting. His theory that Democrats come in two general categories, a)liars, and b) suckers, was quite persuasive.
But why just Democrats? His theory fits Republicans even better. Republican policies are even more in thrall to large corporate interests over those of common individual citizens.
Personally, it seems to me that Party loyalty most resembles rooting for sports teams; "Yay my team, good, bad, or pitiful." No one ever wonders if the Mets really deserve to win or are really objectively the best -- Mets fans just want to win any way they can.
Gus Murphy
Brooklyn, NY
From: Mitchell Langbert
To: PhoeniciaTimes@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:10 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor:
Gus Murphy makes an excellent point in your February 11 issue: both parties are culpable for the serious fiscal and monetary decline facing future generations of Americans. George W. Bush engineered a policy whereby a great deal of money, some insiders are saying $14 trillion, was donated to Wall Street. President Obama executed the Bush donation, which has been his chief achievement besides reappointing Robert Gates defense secretary. Of course Obama threw in an extra trillion of "stimulus" to corrupt contractors, such as to the mob-linked construction firm that is building the power plant in Middletown Connecticut that killed five people last week.
But there is one difference between the parties. There is a movement of Republicans called the Tea Party which rejects the big business- and special interest-linked Republican leadership. I have been at two well-attended meetings of the Kingston Tea Party. At the Tea Party, complaints about George W. Bush are as frequent as complaints about Barack H. Obama. On the other hand, I know of no large group of Democrats who have not goosestepped behind Obama every step of the way. Indeed, the Wall Street-financed media, starting with MSNBC and CNN, have made every effort to paint the Tea Party as violent extremists because they threaten the Bush-Obama, Republican-Democratic Wall Street-Washington equilibrium.
Where are the Democrats who protest Obama's massive subsidy to Wall Street? I can tell you where we Republicans are. I can also tell you where plenty of Obama-cheering limousine liberals are. But where are the Democrats who don't like $14 trillion subsidies to special interests?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
